Calling a car from this period a monster is not exactly uncommon or uncalled for. But what if its own daddy called it that? Virgil Exner, the father of the definitive automotive fins created a sensation in 1957 when they appeared on the all-new “Suddenly it’s 1960” models. With a straight face, Exner then claimed the fins were rooted in aerodynamics and highly functional. But with the ’57s he painted himself into a corner; there was no where further to go with them except ever greater absurdity, quickly turning them into caricatures of themselves. Even Exner admitted as much: “by 1959, it was obvious that I’d given birth to a Frankenstein”. I credit him for his honesty, if not good taste.

Let’s briefly take in the Frankenstein in its full glory, then jump back three years to where it all started.

The 1957 Chryslers (CC here) were probably the finest of the Mopar crop that year, their fins being the cleanest expression of Exner’s bold new look. In addition to the alleged aerodynamic benefits, Exner saw the fins as away to dramatically change the poise of his cars. His son Virgil Exner Jr. speaks for his father’s intentions: “The idea of the fin was to get some poise to the rear of the cars, to get them off of the soft, rounded back-end look, to achieve lightness.”

These ’57s were certainly dramatically ahead of the competition in terms of length, lowness, width and of course fins. And they work quite well here, given the objectives of that moment, questionable as it was.

Exner’s work had two main influences.One was the Italian school of design, especially the Alfa Romeo BAT cars, such as this BAT 5 from 1953, by “Nuccio” Bertone. Not only did the big fins originate here, but the BAT’s divided front end grilles seem to have inspired Exner’s acclaimed 1955 Imperial front end. Did you think Exner was really all that original? The truth is all the big American design Chiefs and stylists stole like mad from Europe. Maybe “stole” is a bit strong, but what is the right word? “Influenced” seems a wee bit too…polite.

And of course, Exner also heavily borrowed from the classic era of the thirties, such as the Duesenberg. The perpetual battleground of integrating such disparate influences plays out repeatedly in his work, for better or for worse. Truth be told, Exner was a bit of a two-hit wonder with the 1955-56 and the 1957 Chryslers. Everything else that followed until he left in 1961 was rather problematic, exacerbating Chrysler’s other issues at the time.

The 1957 Imperial was a bold and expensive gamble by Chrysler to challenge the near-monopoly that Cadillac enjoyed in the fifties. Lincoln was struggling with its own design issues, and the Imperial was certainly years ahead of the rather modest ‘57 Cadillacs, even if it wasn’t quite as harmonious a design as the Chryslers (note: this was during the time when Imperial was a separate brand from Chrysler).

The ’57 Imperial even got its own distinct body shell, unlike previous and later Imperials. One of its most unique features was curved side glass, an industry first. There was no question; the ’57 Imperial was the most advanced of the luxury cars when it appeared, in the context of that moment in time. Of course, like all of Exner’s cars, it was a bit over the top, and not everyone’s taste. But sales tripled in 1957 over the prior year, reaching 35k, an all-time high water mark for both its fins and Imperial sales ever. In 1957, the Imperial could bask in its brief moment of glory and success.

1958 Imperial LeBaron

Of course, the rampant quality problems of all ’57 Chrysler products did not escape the Imperial. and the deep recession of 1958 created a remarkable change in attitude. Suddenly yesterday’s rocket ships became giant finned monsters overnight, now being seen the same light that over-leveraged MacMansions were a few years back. A recession can be a remarkably sobering experience.

Imperial sales dropped by over 50%, and the whole upper end sector took a huge bruising as everyone clamored for Ramblers and VWs. Imperial sold 18k cars in 1960 to Cadillac’s 143k, so maybe it wasn’t all the recession, but perhaps in part to that ridiculous fake spare tire “toilet seat” that showed up in 1958. This was Exner’s jumping the shark moment, although I know some (many) will disagree. You’re wrong! What a hodge-podge of mish-mashes. Suddenly it’s 1974!

At least Imperial didn’t drop as much as Lincoln; their disastrous over-the-top 1958 models dropped Lincoln into the number three sales slot of the luxury brands. For two brief years, Imperial savored silver, even if sales were in the toilet of its own making.

The failure of the Imperials to properly catch on put them into weird sort of limbo: from 1957 through 1966, they used the same basic body shell, despite ever more desperate efforts to conceal that fact. But there was a royal give-away: that very expensive compound curve windshield. Chrysler could screw around with a fin here and a floating headlight there, and eventually some slab sides and new ends, but it was stuck with that distinctive tell-tale windshield for way too long. I figured this out in real time, and each fall as the new cars came out, there it was: that same damn windshield. It wasn’t until 1967, when Imperials went back to using a slightly disguised Chrysler body that it finally disappeared.

When the rest of the Chrysler family switched to unibodies in 1960, the Imperial got a pass. Ostensibly because the frame gave it a quieter ride, the real reason was that Chrysler couldn’t afford to spend anything more than nickles and dimes on the slow selling Imperial during its 1957-1966 body era. Hence the tell-tale windshield.

If this 1960 Imperial is a Frankenstein, than what is its 1961 successor (above)? That’s when Exneruberance started to really go off the deep end, marrying the free-standing headlights inspired from his beloved classic era with the tail end of the fin era. And free-standing taillights to go along, no less. But freaks can be so lovable; I’ll take one home, thank you. But in something a bit bolder than this green.

Consider that by 1961 a revolution was underway, spearheaded by the stunning new Lincoln Continental. The rest of the industry had begun to move move on, and even Cadillac fins had returned to earth. The ’61 Continental made the former leading-edge Imperial look like a retro-mobile, the forerunner of the seventies’ customs like the Bugazzi and such.

After Exner departed, former Ford designer Elwood Engel credited for the ’61 Continental, was brought in to subdue and tone down the the monsters. His reskin of the old ’57 body added very Lincolnesque slab sides to the ’65 Imperial, but still there’s that old ’57 wrap-around windshield again, looking absurdly out of date by then.

Seems like we’ve talked about everything but this 1960. Well, it was an interim year, just before the floating headlights, but the fins were already well past their prime. As a compensation, there’s quite a dramatic dashboard to savor, including those push buttons for the Torqueflite transmission.

Let’s not shortchange Chrysler’s squared-off steering wheel, which was as prescient of future tillers as the fins. Looking out over it was presumably easier, to better appreciate the acreage under which sat Chrysler’s 413 CID wedge V8, which replaced the legendary and legendarily expensive-to-build hemi a couple of years earlier.

With a 350 hp rating, the big wedge did everything the hemi could but even better, except to power a dragster after it was yanked out of its first role in life.

A Frankenstein the 1960 Imperial may well be, but we all loved that monster too. Now it’s hard to fathom how such bizarreness was once considered elegant and chic. Stranger things have happened, but not that many more than the 1960 Imperial.

61 Comments

The 55 & 56 Imperials were the best looking of Exner’s designs I find the 57 flashy but better looking than the Cadillac & Lincoln.The Mopar toilet seat remains a pet hate of mine since I first noticed one on a Chrysler in the early 60s.Elwood Engel’s squared off Imperial got the style back,I like it more than his Lincoln.The feature car is in beautiful condition,just not my cup of tea,nor many other people’s judging by the sales figures.

The 1960 Imperial in particular seems to be one of the more desirable of that (1957-1963) Exner style body…at the time I guess Imperial was thinking if it could try a bit harder it might be able to make some inroads on Cadillac (if it was in 2nd place in the 50s) but when the 1961 Lincoln came out, that probably changed, since I would guess Lincoln took the wind out of the sails (sales?) for Imperial. Too bad, these were very nice cars, even if the styling was out there with space age influence, that’s kind of what we probably find endearing now, as they were so distinctive (I wonder what the execs thought back then, normally cars like this would be conservatively styled, but these were anything but…guess that was the “progress forward” tone of the early 60’s and it shows even though it quickly dates them).

I also get a kick out of the “1 year” changes in Imperial in 1959 and 1960. The exteriors were quite different each year, as well as the interiors, wonder how they could make the 1 year only changes economically (probably cost a lot). I really like the 1960 interior, it is probably one of the neatest car interiors I’ve ever seen. I also am amused by the relocation of the air filter on these to the side (I guess to allow for a lower hood starting in 1957?)…it is as if the engine were sitting too tall for the newly lowered hood this style car started (especially compared to other 1950 car styles)….but later they found room for the now-classic “round” air cleaner directly on top of the carb instead of to the side (maybe they lowered the mounting of the engine or somehow made it less tall to allow for the lower hood). These were huge cars, guess then bigger was considered better, but I wonder how people found room to fit them in their garages, since a lot of the extra room was to accomodate the styling rather than provide space for extra passengers or luggage. They must also be tough to find parking spaces for (quite a few more cars on the road now than 1960, I’m sure)

Despite the same windshield, the 1964-1966 models look like quite a different car (since Engel took over from Exner by then…so they even resemble the “1961” Lincoln). It was as if they said something like “if you can’t beat them then join them” and the start of the end of really distinctive Chrysler styling in most of their models…much as I like the 1964-1966 they look to me like Chrysler was trying to style like a Lincoln rather than the previous Chryslers (except for that windshield).

Anyway, these are sure distinctive…nothing looking like them made since nor before. To me they are the styling equivalent of “irrational exuberance” and I admire them for that.

It should be said that however stylistically lauded the 1961 Lincoln Continental was, it didn’t sell well enough to so much as give Cadillac hiccups and in fact sales weren’t much different than those of the ’59-’60 Lincoln and Continental (combined). The ’62 and ’63 picked up by about 25%, but since that was still only about 30K a year, it wasn’t exceptional.

Yup. Part of the issue may have been price. I don’t have my books with me, but I recall the Continental listing well above Cadillac’s most popular models. The lack of body style variance probably didn’t help either. Both of those issues were tackled in 1966 and Lincoln sales started to climb.

The difference in price between the Lincoln and a Cadillac or Imperial came down mostly to what was standard versus (nominally) optional; in terms of equipment and trim, the Continental was more comparable to a Sixty Special or an Imperial LeBaron, which were actually a bit more expensive. If you gave them all comparable equipment, the prices were really pretty close.

Still, you could at least theoretically buy a Series 62 for a lot less than a Continental and in those days Cadillac’s residuals were pretty iron-clad, which probably made a difference.

I noticed it too last night, as I was putting the finishing touches on this post. I meant to go back and add a line about it, but forgot. When I got up in the middle of the night to go to the john, I almost did, but decided that wasn’t such a good idea.

I’m a little confused about the timeline of the fin. I was always under the impression that the ’48 Cadillac was the fin that started it all. Exner certainly took it to new heights in ’57, but then you say

I just had a thought. Imagine if Exner had gone the other way after seeing the ’59 Caddy and removed the fins for 1960. Imperial would have looked like a style leader, and caught Caddy completely off-guard.

Syke

Posted October 25, 2013 at 6:48 AM

Nice hindsight, but remember that the first probably sightings of the ’59 Cadillac (security was a lot better back then) would have been around August ’58 as the first pre-production models were being parked on GM property. That ’60 Imperial was probably already locked in as a design, and they were building the stamping dies. Normal lead time for a car design back then was 3-4 years, which is what doomed the Edsel.

BigOldChryslers

Posted October 25, 2013 at 6:58 AM

Yes, I know, it was just a random thought. They could have tried to rush a redesign, but would have probably resulted in a fiasco similar to what happened with the ’57 Forward Look cars.

jpcavanaugh

Posted October 25, 2013 at 7:53 AM

In Exner’s defense, 2 years after this car he would have one in showrooms that was arguably the best looking Imp ever done under his tenure. This design had to have been locked in before the 61 Lincoln was out. I am not sure Exner was happy with the de-fin edict which (i understand) came from upper management, but the 62 Imperial carried the look off beautifully (while Cadillac retained some distinct finnage.)

Dave B

Posted October 25, 2013 at 9:23 AM

I agree that with JP that the ’62 is actually a pretty successful style. The main error with it was the very tacked on looking “gun sight” tail lights. Which, was corrected for the rather similar ’63 model. I was not a fan of the “gun sights” on the ’55 and ’56 Imperials, and their return to the top of the rear quarters wasn’t any better in ’62.

You’re not incorrect, what matters is size. The ’48 Cadillac was the first fin, but it was nothing more than a taillight that rose above the rear fender line and a gentle curve to match the fender top to the lens top. And that entire fin was something like 5″ long.

This was the Cadillac fin from ’48 thru ’56 – a gentle bump of taillight. Other makes started slowly inching towards the Cadillac fin, maybe a piece of chrome on the top edge of the fender, maybe a very slight rise. Think Chevrolet for ’54, the fender line was still somewhat straight but the taillight itself was an elongated oval pointed at the top and bottom to give a fin effect when looked at from the rear.

The style got a gentle bump in ’55 – Exner’s Plymouth is the prime (and probably most attractive) example here. A slight rise spread over the entire length of the rear, from abound the B pillar to the taillight tip. The ’56 Lincoln took it a stop further, now going for the entire fender being a fin although keeping restrained. ’57 was the big bump. Chrysler’s Forward Look did it very neatly (except for Dodge), both in straight lines where it worked very well (Chrysler, DeSoto) and rounded lines where it wasn’t so successful (Imperial, Plymouth). GM started upping the ante’ although nowhere near as successfully, going to real fins on Cadillac and Chevrolet, while staying with the earlier more conservative versions on Buick and Oldsmobile. Ford did downsized Lincoln, Lincoln went mad, Mercury was the only one at that point being original. The independents got desperate with usually pathetic results, because they were just tacking fins on a few year old designs.

By ’58 the gloves were off, by ’59 over-the-top was normal, and by ’60 the public was getting sick of fins.

I hadn’t forgotten about the ’55-56 Eldorado’s, but having come from that era, I don’t really consider them that much. They were not common cars, in the way that a deVille was common. If anything, they were fairly rare. Nor were they as important and noticeable as, say, a Continental Mark II. The latter was a whole different marque, the former just a higher priced version of another marque.

That’s one of the interesting biases that the Internet has given us: With all this wealth of knowledge at our fingertips, suddenly a model car that sold a couple thousand is considered just as important as another model that sold in six figures. When it wasn’t at the time that it was new.

While everyone else here is kicking this car in the butt for either the fins or the toilet seat, I think this car’s greatest sin is its front end. That drooping front bumper and odd grille shape (coupled with that strangely uninspired grille texture) is what ruins this car for me.

ImpCapn – I am going on record as saying that the big square-rigged 1960 Lincoln is not just a better looking car than the 60 Imp, but a car so much more attractive, that it pains me to even have to make the comparison. 🙂

The 1960 is the only Imperial that would have to earn its way into my garage by being in screamingly beautiful condition at a crazy low price. And even then, I would have to think about it. This may be my least favorite of every Exner design at Chrysler of all time. All of the others can be ameliorated by body style or color. Nothing you can do with this one.

“One day in the late Thirties, Earl received government permission through a friend to take some of his best designers to Michigan’s Selfridge Field to see a secret military aircraft. Designers Bill Mitchell and Frank Hershey were among the group…There on the runway, sat the thirteenth Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the twin-boomed aeronautical marvel that after some further development was going to set combat records in the coming war”

“Hershey was also impressed with the plane’s aerodynamic flow, but when he got back to his studio he began experimenting with the line of the tailfin he had seen. He worked with that idea, but both he and Mitchell moved on to other design projects before they left GM to serve in the Navy during World War II. Even so, meeting up with the P-38 Lightning had cast a spell over all the designers who had seen it. This spell would carry through the long war to the introduction of the 1948 Cadillac almost a decade later — and beyond that into defining the design “flavor” of Cadillacs for years thereafter. ”

“Hershey returned to GM in 1944, and Earl put him in charge of the Cadillac Design Studio. The war was winding down, so cadillac had to be made ready for a return to non-military production. To set the record straight, Mitchell, who had headed Cadillac design before going into the military, didn’t leave the Navy until about a year after Hershey. Even then, he didn’t stay long at GM because he was asked to run a private design firm that Harley Earl had earlier started with his sons. Both the 1948 and ’49 Cadillacs had been designed before Mitchell eventually returned to GM.”

Although Earl was on board with the design influenced by the P-38 it was Hershey who actually got the tailfin on the ’48

I had heard that the idea for the fin came from the P-38, but not at such an early date. So a bunch of car stylists got to visit a top secret air force base. Such was the power of the auto industry at the time I guess. I doubt such a request would be granted today. Of course, designers probably don’t look to rockets or airplanes much for inspiration today.

Alfred Sloan’s “My years with General Motors” concurs with Ottomobill’s account of the start of the tail fin, but places the time of the P-38 viewing during the war. 1941-45 seems more likely than late 30’s, but Mr. Sloan could have been off in his recollection too.

The late ’30s would definitely have been too early. I wrote about this for Autoweek earlier this year and I believe it would have been sometime around April 1941, which was the first time the YP-38 was at Selfridge Field in Michigan. The 1 Pursuit Group did some preliminary flight testing and then accepted their first service P-38s in July, so that is the most likely window.

Look at the front of this Imperial! What the hell is that supposed to be saying when it arrives? What driver is going to want to present that face to the public? It isn’t a classic face. It isn’t an aggressive face. It isn’t a neutral look. The damn car looks like it doesn’t know why it is where it is, or where the hell it is supposed to go. The front end of the Imperial has absolutely NO CONFIDENCE. The front end looks like it has a goofy silly smurk on it. It’s not cute, handsome or desirable. A hail mary pass from the styling department on a budget and without direction.

It looks like a car carrying it’s own porta-potty on it’s ass – and it is!

Chrysler was hit by the 1961 Lincoln at a time when they didn’t know who was leading the company. They didn’t even know who was going to be their supplier since the corruption included their major suppliers as well. Stylist were awaiting the return of a very ill Exner. Instead of focusing on the Market, Chrysler was focusing on cleaning up the juiciest fiscal kickback scandal since WWII. Luckily for Chrysler, the Federal Government cut them slack and let the whole thing get buried without locking up some previously important people within the Company.

The Board was involved in making justice prevail among the wrong doers without involving the courts or the media. It was honor among thieves with backroom justice delivered. “Nothing to see here, folks!” is what I can imagine the Chrysler Board telling the Kennedy Administration and the Administration letting the Board do it’s work.

Without clear leaders, the Market took a back seat while Chrysler went to hell quickly. The Imperial didn’t get a new fresh design language, DeSoto was euthanized, Valiant was given to Plymouth to appease screwing Plymouth out of it’s market with competing Dodge products, and no one seemed to have figured out what the hell Newburg was thinking by downsizing and leaving the biggest car markets in the US, leaving the Impala and the Galaxie to rule for a decade.

Instead of looking like Jaqueline Kennedy, it looks like Lady Gaga in her meat dress. Nice look if you like something out of a Busby Berkley musical.

Vanilla, I’d agree that the 1960 Imperial’s front wasn’t terribly successful. I don’t know if I’d say that it displays a lack of confidence. It violates the design groupthink of the time in a number of ways, such as the slightly swept-back grille and downward-angled bumpers. I give Exner credit for trying something different.

Another unusual feature for the time was a pronounced side crease. That was the first one I can recall except for those side sweeps on the early-50 Hudsons.

The worst design change for 1960 was how the tail fins lost their long, gracious arc into the rear doors. Down the road that would make it easier to shave off the fins without redesigning the rear-door sheetmetal, but before that happened the fins looked too short and tall.

My maternal grandfather had the twin of this car, only his was a dark blue instead of light. He was an itinerant Pentecostal preacher and spent a lot of time on the road. For transportation he would buy old luxury cars, drive them until they needed an expensive repair, and then just buy something else. I remember seeing grandfather in a couple of Roadmasters, an early fifties Packard and a Lincoln but he was partial to Chrysler Corporation vehicles, and would drive them if he could find the right deal. He kept the Imperial longer than the others and still owned it when he died so apparently it must have been reliable. He died in 1972 and had slowed down quite a bit a couple of years before that. I don’t know what he would have done if he had been around for the various gas shortages.

Becoming aware of cars in the very late ’60’s, the ’55 – ’63 Imperials were basically gone by then. It was almost like discovering something new quite some years later as my knowledge and interest increased.

Some of these cars can be sort of ugly, or silly, depending on your point of view.

Random thoughts:

*Say what you will about Exner, but he did cement into place the basic full size car profile / proportions that lasted through the ’78 Chrysler and the ’80 Lincoln. Even these cars had “bladed” rear quarters that hinted at the fins of the past. His longer, lower wider box design with no hint of external fenders was leaps ahead of almost anything else in 1957.

*The toilet bowl never bothered me. At least was (always?) usually optional.

*The tacked on “gun sight” tail lights are classic now, but had to be controversial in ’55 with some people. The ’55-’56 car was otherwise very attractive. Bringing them back in ’62 was just plain silly.

*The ’57 – ’59 Imperials work for their era. As Paul pointed out, the ’57 quality problems followed by the ’58 recession were the real battle that these cars fought. These cars offered continuity before Lincoln made it fashionable. The Cadillac was a different car each of these years. Cadillac caught up to Imperial in ’59 with a car that is awfully similar to the Imperial in many respects.

*Selling fins as functional was quickly regrettable.

*The ’60 car was sort of an aimless rework of the ’57 – ’59 car. But, 1960 was a year of weird cars – ’60 Mercury anyone? Exner had stolen 1960 from the designers, and it seemed every body was trying to find the next big thing. Lincoln found it in ’61, a year when the Imperial was dated, and arguably the worst Imperial of the era.

*The rear quarters on the ’61 Imperial are hideous.

*If the ’57 quality mess had not happened, and the ’63 car had been introduced in ’60, the history of Imperial might have been quite different.

*The square steering wheels were silly and had to repel some people. For that matter, the non symmetrical front seats on some Mopars were not any better.

*People rag on the ’57 – ’66 windshield, but it works pretty well on the cars through ’63. It’s a bit tacked on to the ’64-’66 cars, but it never bothered me until I’d read countless modern criticisms of the issue.

*The ’64 cars get called Lincolns far more than they deserve – because of Engel. It was the general direction of the entire industry. The ’63 Buick Electra and Olds 98 are far more Lincolnesque with their slab sides.

*Getting out there a bit, the ’67-’68 cars are far too criticized as being thinly disguised Chryslers. Outside of the windshield, they share no common exterior metal or trim with the ’67 Chrysler. Even the interiors are fully unique. Heck, the Cadillac was just another C body – closely related to the B body and no one throws a fit over that.

*The real irony of the ’67 cars was that they were advertised as the newest in a decade. Yet, write ups of the era endlessly bring up quality and build problems. Not much different then ’57. That pretty much killed the Imperial, and it really did become a high trim line Chrysler in ’69.

Another notable tidbit about the 1960 Imperial was it’s most famous passenger. Although her husband may have been a Ford (Lincoln) man, Imperial was the ride of choice for the First Lady and had her own custom Le Baron at her exclusive disposal

I love these Imperials specially the ’62 & ’63. But then I also love the ’59 & ’60 Cadillac, and the ’58 – ’60 Continentals. While some may see them as crass and point out their inefficiencies I see rolling sculpture. Compare these cars (aesthetically) to the cars on the road today and tell me we are better off.